Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsemrau | Hacker News Reader

I suppose Apple's product is not a VR product but "Spatial Computing"

Quote "Vision Pro, on the other hand, is primarily an AR device that just happens to have a few VR features"

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/hands-on-with-apple-...

"Spatial computing" is 95% just a marketing term. Understandably Apple wants to project the perception they are doing something new here. So they invented a new term. There are a few novel aspects to it, but it's honestly just VR/AR like everyone else has been doing in terms of all of its fundamental features. Which isn't to say I'm not curious about what novel things they will introduce. However what's visible so far is actually behind status quo in terms of true "spatial computing" eg: shared spatial anchors API [0] has been out for a while and lets multiple users collaborate in the same mixed reality space. So far Vision Pro doesn't seem to even support this fundamental use case that you would expect to see from a "spatial computing" device.

I do expect Apple to rapidly implement all this though and do everything better at the same time, so it's very exciting.

[0] https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-share...

You know, they didn't put it in the marketing materials because it's a $7000 minimum feature but I think the AVP likely does support the existing iOS anchor API.

I think you’re right, but I’d rephrase it as Apple focusing on what can be a great experience right now (viewing any iPad or macOS app spatially, a massive improvement over using either platform currently) vs highlighting what can only be a mediocre or enthusiast experience at the moment (full VR environments, and 3D AR).

They’re smart to set a minimum bar for quality experience and work on future applications over time vs Meta and Google’s typical approach of developing beta products in public.

In the same way "retina display" is not fundamentally unique, the Quest line is just as capable of "spatial computing."

I'll argue that the one major difference in Apple's approach is they're going with multi-app support out of the gate. It positions the device as a low friction compute device instead of an engrossing entertainment device.

...but that's just software and I think it's within Meta's reach. It'll be interesting to see when Meta decides to make the pivot themselves and how much of Apple's custom stack will need to be replicated and how far ahead they actually are.

“Meta’s reach” from my perspective was to take an excellent Oculus, rename it, and put everything behind an annoying facebook account. Can’t wait to see their further “innovations” in this space.

Meta already have multi tasking on the Quest Pro. What they don’t have is a significant app ecosystem outside of games

Consider that the Vision Pro not only runs iOS and iPadOS apps without modification, but also the fact that you can modify those apps to progressively adopt visionOS features.

To me, the killer software differentiator is that the Vision Pro will likely let you do most things you want within the headset. The quest requires you to take it off to do non gaming things or use often subpar web interfaces instead.

The multitasking is really not the same. You can't have multiple spatial apps on the quest simultaneously in the same way the AVP was demoed, at least not yet.

In theory there's a play for Meta to lean into deeper Android app compatibility. The apps do currently run on the device. The issue is the lack of Google services and app store but perhaps Meta could make it work or make a deal.

I do think Meta still lags behind on the app store front, both from a consumer and dev perspective. They've focused on gaming and they've done well to bring up a very solid game console but it's not the same thing. Their biggest gap to catch up on is the app side of the store and they have to do it through jeers that they've abandoned gamers.

Hmm I thought meta had demoed multiple apps at once, but I also find they show a lot of simulated content that they don’t deliver on so I’m not surprised either. That’s actually one thing I admire from the Vision Pro announcement is that it was all real. I own a Quest but I honestly haven’t been interested by the Quest Pro as a result.

I agree with you that Meta could make a deal with Google. Though at the same time, they want to own their platform and I can see their desire for that get in the way of true Android app compatibility.

And yeah, I liken the Quest to a console whereas the Vision Pro seems like a computer. It’s a good console but Meta clearly want to make it more than that but I’m doubtful they can.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com